s the debate over the need to create new administrative units gains momentum across Pakistan, Sindh is emerging as the most crucial battleground in what could become one of the country’s most consequential constitutional debates.

For proponents of administrative restructuring, smaller provinces are a possible answer to Pakistan’s chronic governance failures, uneven development and growing demands for greater political participation.

In Sindh, the proposal touches a raw nerve. It raises the question of the province’s territorial integrity and the political identity built around it.

The central dilemma, therefore, is not whether Pakistan needs smaller administrative units. It is whether such restructuring can be undertaken without turning Sindh’s political landscape into a new arena of confrontation.

Pakistan Peoples Party, which has dominated Sindh’s electoral politics for long, insists that there is no change in its position: Sindh will not be divided. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan argues that administrative restructuring has become unavoidable because the existing governance system has failed millions of citizens, particularly in Karachi.

The contrasting positions highlight a fundamental disagreement over what lies at the heart of Sindh’s problems: is the solution better governance within the existing provincial structure or a fundamental restructuring?

For the PPP, the answer is the former.

The PPP, and some political observers, interpret the MQM-P’s renewed advocacy for new administrative units in Sindh through a distinctly political lens. They believe that the MQM-P is pushing the demand to generate discord, confrontation and political polarisation in Sindh, thereby creating an environment in which the party could attempt to revive its fast-declining mass appeal in the province’s urban areas.

According to this assessment, the demand for new administrative units is not being pursued as an administrative or governance reform agenda but as a politically emotive issue capable of disturbing old urban-rural faultlines. PPP leaders argue that a confrontational campaign over the territorial status of Sindh could provide the MQM-P with an opportunity to reclaim lost political space.

Sharjeel Inam Memon, Sindh’s information minister, has stressed that any attempt to create a new province must follow the procedure prescribed by the constitution. He points out that the Sindh Assembly has considered the issue on seven occasions, passing resolutions against the creation of a new province.

According to Memon, four of these resolutions were adopted unanimously; three were passed by a majority vote. His argument is that the provincial assembly has already expressed the collective political position of Sindh, which simply cannot be bypassed through television debates, political statements or pressure from outside the province.

For the PPP, this is also a question of constitutional principle. The party frequently reminds political opponents that it has played a central role in framing and safeguarding the constitution; that any alteration in provincial boundaries must be undertaken through the constitutional mechanism, with the consent of elected representatives.

The PPP’s approach is noticeably measured rather than aggressive.

Memon says that the PPP does not want to respond to what it regards as provocative political rhetoric from the MQM-P with equally confrontational language, fearing that an escalating war of words could create unnecessary tension and hostility in Sindh.

However, this restraint has led to speculation.

Some analysts say that the PPP, eventually, will have to demonstrate greater flexibility. The PPP leaders reject this interpretation.

According to Memon and other senior leaders, the party’s reluctance to engage in aggressive rhetoric should not be mistaken for a willingness to yield on the issue.

Opposition to the division of Sindh extends well beyond the ruling party. Sindhi nationalists have historically regarded the integrity of the province as non-negotiable. A perception that the PPP may be prepared to compromise on this question could trigger a huge political reaction.

Recent experience supports this view.

The province-wide agitation against proposals for new irrigation canals on the Indus River demonstrated how quickly an issue perceived as threatening Sindh’s fundamental interests can bring together otherwise divided political groups.

Political sensitivity of the issue has also been highlighted by Pir Sahib Pagara, whose recent statement differed somewhat from the traditional unequivocal rejection of any discussion about new administrative arrangements in Sindh.

The Pir called for a strong and united federation. He urged that every aspect of the proposal for new administrative units be examined seriously. Importantly, he called for broad consensus, emphasising national cohesion and integrity.

His carefully worded position does not amount to an endorsement of Sindh’s division. Still, his refusal to categorically close the door on the debate has attracted attention because political parties in Sindh have generally treated the territorial question as settled.

The MQM-P, meanwhile, has called for administrative restructuring, basing its demand on governance, representation and accountability.

The party has pointed to Karachi and Hyderabad, whose combined population, it says, accounts for around 43 percent of Sindh’s population. It says their political influence remains disproportionately limited in the existing structure.

The MQM-P leaders also claim that the Sindh government has received around Rs 22,000 billion from the federal government through the divisible pool over approximately 18 years. This year alone, they say, Sindh received Rs 2,263 billion. However, it says the local governments do not receive significant funds.

The MQM-P’s argument is politically explosive: if substantial financial resources are being transferred to the provinces, why are millions of Sindh’s residents facing basic governance failures?

Its indictment of the current system makes references to uncovered manholes, deaths from dogbites, inadequate water supply, deteriorating sewerage systems, broken roads, failing public transport and serious problems in government schools and healthcare facilities.

The party also highlights hardships faced in rural Sindh, where women in some areas still travel considerable distances carrying pitchers to access water and are sometimes forced to share water sources with livestock.

MQM-P leaders say these are not merely administrative failures. They say, these demonstrate that the governance model has failed to provide effective accountability.

Its proposed solution is the creation of new administrative units that bring government closer to the people and provide communities with greater ownership of the resources allocated for their development.

This is where the debate becomes considerably more complicated.

The MQM-P’s governance argument resonates with grievances in Karachi and other urban centres. But the PPP and Sindh’s nationalist forces regard the proposed remedy as more dangerous than the ills the province faces.

They contend that poor governance can be addressed through institutional reform, stronger local governments, greater fiscal autonomy and improved accountability without redrawing provincial boundaries.

The PPP also questions the political legitimacy of the MQM-P’s demand. Saeed Ghani, the provincial labour minister and PPP’s Karachi division president, says that the MQM-P leaders have suffered a substantial decline in electoral influence.

Ghani says that successive assemblies have seen political parties other than the MQM-P support resolutions rejecting the creation of a new province. He also points out that on some occasions MQM lawmakers participated in assembly proceedings during which such resolutions were passed, yet did not oppose those.

The MQM-P insists that the issue should not be reduced to the electoral strength of individual politicians. Its case is that millions of citizens in urban Sindh face governance problems that cannot be resolved through changes in political leadership.

This is perhaps the most important distinction in the debate.

The PPP sees provincial unity as a constitutional and political safeguard. The MQM-P sees administrative restructuring as a mechanism for true representation and accountability. Pir Pagara calls for national consensus and a stronger federation. Sindh’s nationalist forces see any division of the province as a threat to its historic and political identity.

The debate over new provinces cannot be separated from the question of trust.

In Sindh, some argue that administrative restructuring will amount to political engineering. In urban areas, there is an equally powerful perception that the unity rhetoric has been used to justify a governance structure that has failed to deliver basic municipal and public services.

The writer is a senior reporter at The News, Karachi. He covers the federal and the Sindh governments, Sindh Assembly and politics.